Article 155. A military member may not be promoted when he or she is undergoing a judicial or administrative investigation nor [may] anyone [be promoted]against whom an arrest warrant or indictment has been issued by the military or ordinary justice courts. However, if the investigation or the trial concludes with a favorable decision or a dispositive final acquittal, as the case may be, the elapsed time shall be counted as service provided at the rank and he or she may be promoted, should all other legal requirements be fulfilled.120 102. In early 2005, the petitioners requested the Office of the Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman to enforce said provision of said article and to not proceed to any further promotions.121In response to said request, the General Directorate of Procedural Matters advised them that it [the request] had been “properly processed” and that it had been brought to the attention of the Prosecutors assigned to the investigation “for the consequent purposes.”122 In the case file, no supporting documentary exhibits are found regarding additional proceedings on this issue. 2. Amparo proceeding before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the transfer of the investigation to the ordinary criminal jurisdiction 103. On September 19, 2001, the father brought suit for constitutional relief through amparo against the decision of August 22, 2001 (supra par. 84). Therein, he alleged that the military jurisdiction had held itself competent to hear a case of the common crime of homicide; the military authorities had been hearing the case for more than three and a half years; the case had been “started over three times[…] from zero;” and that the Court Martial had once ordered to take the case back to the first stage of the proceedings.123 104. The father also contended that he could not prove violations “of a proper prior investigation” because the Office of the Military Prosecutor of San Cristóbal did not grant his request for copies of the case file before that jurisdiction. The amparosuit was filed along with a request for an injunction for the criminal proceeding before the military court to be stayed until a decision is made on the amparo claim.124 On November 9, 2001, the Constitutional Chamber granted the amparo petition and agreed to the request for an injunction, including staying the preliminary hearing ordered by the Court Martial on August 22, 2001.125 105. It appears on the record in the case file that on October 5, 2001, the preliminary hearing had already been held before the Military Trial Court of San Cristóbal, wherein the private and Military Prosecutor’s criminal complaints had been allowed to proceed126and the order was issued to hold a public 120Organic Law of the National Armed Forces. Official Gazette No. 4.844 of January 18, 1995. 121See: Communications written by Mr. Edgar Ortiz and Mrs. Zaida Hernández addressed toAttorney General of the Republic Isaías Rodríguez, dated January 27, 2005; and Office of the Delegate of the Ombudsman in San Cristóbal, State of Tachira, dated February 3, 2005. Annexes F and I, respectively, to petitioners’ submission of March 29, 2005. 122Annex 80. Communication No. DPDF-16-PRO-42-1410 of February 16, 2005, addressed to Edgar Ortiz and Zaida Hernández, by the Director General of Procedural Affairs of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of February 16, 2005. Annex K to petitioners’ submission of March 29, 2005. 123Annex 81. Amparo suit for constitutional relief against the court decision, filed by Edgar Humberto Ortiz Ruiz with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Annex B to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 124Annex 81. Amparo suit for constitutional relief against the court decision, filed by Edgar Humberto Ortiz Ruiz with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Annex B to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 125Annex 82. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 9, 2001. Annex C to petitioners’ submission received on February 25, 2002. 126Against (NG) Coronel Rafael Antonio Rijana Lucero, (NG) Coronel Alexander Flores Lamus, (NG) Major Eddin Ruben Villasmil Antunez, (NG) Lieutenant Fidel Camilo Rodríguez Barrolleta, (NG) Lieutenant Fidel Camilo Rodríguez Barrolleta, (NG) Lieutenant Rafael Antonio Villasana Fernández, for commission of the crime of “military joint liability for negligence in the crime of negligent homicide;” against (NG) Major Eddin Ruben Villasmil Antunez, for the crime of “masterminding and perpetrating aggravated intentional homicide;” against (NG) Captain Gerardo Enrique Méndez Figueroa,for the crime of “cover-up;” against Distinguished National Guardsman Gerson Secundino Jiménez Hernández,for the same crime; against National Guardsman Antonio Elías Linares [continues …]